Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 925 — Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n (2026)

Product liability claims

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A product liability claim as provided in sections 52-240a, 52-240b, 52-572m to 52-572q, inclusive, and 52-577a may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including actions of negligence, strict liability and warranty, for harm caused by a product.

(b) A claim may be asserted successfully under said sections notwithstanding the claimant did not buy the product from or enter into any contractual relationship with the product seller.

(c) As between commercial parties, commercial loss caused by a product is not harm and may not be recovered by a commercial claimant in a product liability claim. An action for commercial loss caused by a product may be brought only under, and shall be governed by, title 42a, the Uniform Commercial Code.

(P.A. 79-483, S. 2; P.A. 82-160, S. 243; P.A. 84-509, S. 2; 84-546, S. 121, 173.)

History: P.A. 82-160 amended Subsec. (a) by deleting incorrect statutory references; P.A. 84-509 added Subsec. (c) re the recovery of commercial loss caused by a product; P.A. 84-546 deleted reference to Sec. 38-370o in Subsec. (a); (Revisor's note: The reference in Subsec. (a) to Secs. “52-572n to 52-572r” was changed editorially by the Revisors to Secs. “52-572n to 52-572q” to reflect the repeal of Sec. 52-572r by P.A. 93-228, S. 34, 35).

Cited. 187 C. 363; 192 C. 280; 203 C. 156; 204 C. 399. Sec. 52-572m et seq., product liability act, abrogated common law indemnification principles in this area. 205 C. 694. Cited. 207 C. 575; Id., 599; 210 C. 189; 212 C. 509; 213 C. 136; 216 C. 65; 226 C. 282; 229 C. 213; Id., 500; 233 C. 732; 236 C. 769. Product liability law discussed. 241 C. 199. Modified consumer expectation test, recognized in 241 C. 199, is the primary strict product liability test; ordinary consumer expectation test is reserved for those limited cases in which product fails to meet consumer's legitimate, commonly accepted minimum safety expectations. 321 C. 172. Section's exclusivity provision bars a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act based on allegations that medical device manufacturer deceptively and aggressively marketed and promoted product despite knowing it presented a substantial risk of injury. 343 C. 513.

Cited. 1 CA 48; 2 CA 308. Party has option of pleading common law theories or pleading under statute. 3 CA 230. Cited. 8 CA 642; 16 CA 558; 30 CA 664; 31 CA 824; 36 CA 601; 39 CA 635; 41 CA 555; Id., 856; 46 CA 18; Id., 699.

Cited. 40 CS 74; Id., 120; 41 CS 179; 42 CS 153; 44 CS 510.

Subsec. (a):

Provides an exclusive remedy; common law cause of action for claim within the scope of statute is barred. 200 C. 562. Product liability act provides exclusive remedy for such claims. 212 C. 462. Does not prevent plaintiff who seeks damages under product liability act for injuries caused by allegedly defective product from also asserting a claim under Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act for damages alleged to have been caused by product seller's deceptive scheme to misrepresent and conceal the product defect. 263 C. 120. Claim that defendant breached duty to warn of dangerous and hazardous condition of rented scaffolding is barred by exclusivity provision of Subsec. 284 C. 16. Wrongful marketing claim under CUTPA did not allege product defect and, therefore, is not precluded by exclusivity provision of Subsec. 331 C. 53.

Product liability claim replaces negligence and warranty actions against product sellers only. 36 CS 137.

Subsec. (c):

“Commercial loss” does not encompass costs incurred by a commercial party in repairing or replacing a defective product or in repairing property damage caused by a defective product. 291 C. 224.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC, 202 A.3d 262 (Conn. 2019). · cites it 11× “among other things, (1) the plaintiffs lack standing to bring a CUTPA action, (2) the plaintiffs' claims are time barred by CUTPA's three year statute of limitations; see General Statutes § 42-110g (f) ; (3) personal injuries and death are not cognizable CUTPA damages, and (4)…”
Winslow v. Lewis-Shepard, Inc., 562 A.2d 517 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 20× “The sole issue on this appeal is whether our products liability statute, General Statutes § 52-572n (a), provides the exclusive remedy for a claim falling within its scope, thereby denying a claimant the option of bringing common law causes of action for the same claim.”
Thibodeau v. Design Grp. One Architects, LLC, 802 A.2d 731 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 7× “(Workers’ Compensation Act); 8 General Statutes § 52-572n (Connecticut product liability statute).”
Gerrity v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 818 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2003). · cites it 10× “More specifically, the certified question requires that we determine whether the exclusivity provision of the product liability act, General Statutes § 52-572n (a), 2 serves to prevent the plaintiff from also asserting a particular claim under CUTPA.”
Lynn v. Haybuster Mfg., Inc., 627 A.2d 1288 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 6× “Relying on cases 6 wherein this court held that certain “exclusive” statutory schemes did not provide a right to claim a loss of consortium, the defendant argues that this derivative and dependent action is similarly prohibited by the act.”
Sylvan R. Shemitz Designs, Inc. v. Newark Corp., 967 A.2d 1188 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 13× “The defendants also moved to strike the plaintiffs claim of breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, alleging, first, that the plaintiffs claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the act; see General Statutes § 52-572n (a); 5 and, second, that the claim is…”
Mazurek v. Great Am. Ins., 930 A.2d 682 (Conn. 2007). · cites it 4× “The trial court concluded that the portion of the complaint alleging Handy’s failure to wain the plaintiff about the dangers associated with the scaffolding was barred by the exclusivity provision of the product liability act; see General Statutes § 52-572n (a); and that, even…”
Allard v. Liberty Oil Equip. Co., 756 A.2d 237 (Conn. 2000). · cites it 6× “” General Statutes § 52-572n provides: “Product liability claims, (a) A product liability claim as provided in sections 52-240a, 52-240b, 52-572m to 52-572q, inclusive, and 52-577a may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including…”
Utica Mut. Ins. v. Denwat Corp., 778 F. Supp. 592 (D. Conn. 1991). · cites it 11× “The act further describes the scope of coverage: “Product liability claim” shall include, but is not limited to, all actions based on the following theories: Strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to…”
Comind, Companhia De Seguros v. Sikorsky Aircraft Div. of United Tech. Corp., 116 F.R.D. 397 (D. Conn. 1987). · cites it 8× “Because this issue has not been raised by either side, the Court expresses no opinion on the plaintiff’s failure to consolidate its claims in accordance with § 52-572n. The Court takes note of C.G.S.”
Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D. Conn. 2006). · cites it 10× “At oral argument, Ford conceded that it is not moving for summary judgment under Connecticut law.”
Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 343 Conn. 513 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 6× “Pursuant further to the CPLA (§ 52-572n (a)), ‘‘[a] product liability claim as provided [under that act] may be asserted and shall be in lieu of all other claims against product sellers, including actions of negligence, strict liability and warranty, for harm caused by a product.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(a) — 29 cases
Walters v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 676 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D. Conn. 2009).
Utica Mut. Ins. v. Denwat Corp., 778 F. Supp. 592 (D. Conn. 1991). “The act further describes the scope of coverage: “Product liability claim” shall include, but is not limited to, all actions based on the following theories: Strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to…”
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993).
Yale Univ. v. Cigna Ins., 224 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D. Conn. 2002).
McConologue v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D. Conn. 2014).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(a)(2001) — 1 case
Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 230 (D. Conn. 2003).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(b) — 2 cases
Rosenthal v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 462 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D. Conn. 2006). “At oral argument, Ford conceded that it is not moving for summary judgment under Connecticut law.”
Utica Mut. Ins. v. Denwat Corp., 778 F. Supp. 592 (D. Conn. 1991). “The act further describes the scope of coverage: “Product liability claim” shall include, but is not limited to, all actions based on the following theories: Strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(c) — 10 cases
Comind, Companhia De Seguros v. Sikorsky Aircraft Div. of United Tech. Corp., 116 F.R.D. 397 (D. Conn. 1987). “Because this issue has not been raised by either side, the Court expresses no opinion on the plaintiff’s failure to consolidate its claims in accordance with § 52-572n. The Court takes note of C.G.S.”
McKernan v. United Tech. Corp., 717 F. Supp. 60 (D. Conn. 1989).
Utica Mut. Ins. v. Denwat Corp., 778 F. Supp. 592 (D. Conn. 1991). “The act further describes the scope of coverage: “Product liability claim” shall include, but is not limited to, all actions based on the following theories: Strict liability in tort; negligence; breach of warranty, express or implied; breach of or failure to discharge a duty to…”
Lamontagne v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 834 F. Supp. 576 (D. Conn. 1993).
Icelandic Coast Guard v. United Tech. Corp., 722 F. Supp. 942 (D. Conn. 1989).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572n(e) — 1 case
Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. v. Grodsky Serv., Inc., 781 F. Supp. 897 (D. Conn. 1991).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.